Rob0729

Ok, I have no idea who these guys are or if his source inside the Patriots' organization is true (claims he has worked with the Pats since 1992), but the article does give McDaniels' far more credit for the success of this offense than a lot of people are willing to give him here.

I Was Wrong About Josh Mcdaniels, and So Are You | NFL Sport Channel

Again, I have no idea who this site is and they blatantly steal ESPN's design. So I don't know if this is a totally BS story or not. Granted it is a Mea Culpa by an admitted McDaniels basher.

If true, this concerns me a bit about the offense going forward. Yes, we still have Brady, Moss, Welker, and the rest. So the offense will still be good, but what if it was McDaniels that made the 2007 offense go from being very good to special and the 2006 (no receivers) and 2008 (no Brady) offenses from being complete disasters to very good.

It could also be why Belichick didn't trade Cassel to Denver even if he could get better picks. He might have felt it would hurt the Pats' chances down the road in the playoffs with Cassel under McDaniels again.

Ok, I know I have been accused of being a McDaniels ball washer. I'm sure that the usually suspects on both sides of the argument (which I am included) will battle this out again for pages of posts. But I figured I would pass this along because IF TRUE this could be a more significant blow to the offense than most of us are willing to admit. I still think that if Brady is healthy this offense will be one of the best in the league, but it might not be nearly as dangerous as the 2007 offense was.

Rob0729

Doing a little more research (ok, clicking the link that say source at the bottom of the page), this is a Bleacher Report post. That adds a little more doubt on the validity of the article. But the writer could still be getting real info, but he could also be talking to the janitor over at Gillette too.

I Was Wrong About Josh Mcdaniels, and So Are You | Bleacher Report

Granted he also wrote these articles before it, which clearly bashes McDaniels comparing him to Lane Kiffin and Sarah Palin.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...cos-are-doomed
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1...nt-lane-kiffin

PatsFanSince74

I don't know how to judge the credibility of this article and I really don't care to do so, one way or the other. In fact, I don't think we can.

There's an old adage that goes roughly, "Success has many fathers; failure is an orphan."

What I do know is that there are many "fathers" to credit with the success of the Pats O in recent years and especially in 2007, starting with the players on the field. No doubt a fair share of that credit belongs to the Offensive Coordinator, who was indeed hired and rehired by one of the greatest HC's ever to walk an NFL sideline and who isn't known for keeping Coaches or Players around out of "sentiment."

I do, however, disagree with your suggestion that this year's offense will be disadvantaged because of McDaniels' absence. That is not only unknowable at this time, but flies in the face of BB's proven trackrecord of success with the Players and Coaches who happen to be around him in any given season.

Josh now has his "shot" to show what he can do when not surrounded by the greatest system and many of the greatest players in the Game today. I wish him every success (but success that falls short of beating the Pats or winning the AFC championship ).

__________________
It is what it is. It wasn't what it wasn't.

Rob0729

Well, I think it is possible the Pats will be at a disadvantage without McDaniels especially in the short term. Whether this article is true or BS and if McDaniels is an offensive genius or not, there could be growing pains as Bill O'Brien is groomed to take over the OC position as people expects. McDaniels obviously picked up the role quickly and there was even talk in 2005 by many in the media that while everyone was focusing on Mangini and his growth that McDaniels was doing a far better job on the other side of the ball. No guarantees that O'Brien will adapt as quickly. So even if McDaniels was just an average OC, the offense could suffer a bit from his loss.

Again, I am not predicting a disaster. Assuming Brady is healthy enough to return to form, this team is too talented to not be a top offense in the league. Brady is still Brady. He was Brady before McDaniels and, barring that his knee isn't screwed up, he is still Brady now.

I just question that IF McDaniels was as good as this article states, whether the offense will be dominant. Even if the offense does suffer a bit initially, it doesn't mean that O'Brien won't turn into an OC who is as good or better than McDaniels. I think the offense and defense suffered a bit in 2005 because of the loss of Weis and Crennel, but rebounded later in the season or the following year.

As for McDaniels in Denver, I am torn. I have rooted for every coordinator that left other than Mangini. But I can't root for the Broncos no matter who is coaching for them. I still haven't figured out how McDaniels can become a Hall of Fame coach while have the Broncos have a losing season every year he is coaching there. So I will have to root against him having personal success while having as long of a career in Denver as Shanahan had.

RayClay

Jeez, we're screwed this year. We've lost two of those guys too. I thought that Moss guy was good, little did I know it was all McDaniels.

I'm assuming McDaniels took Super Bowl week off.

I heard he got that idea from the coach at Notre Dame.

Sorry, Robo, you've got to read them before you post them.

__________________

Frezo

It's not a stretch to assume that McDaniels would not be seeing the amount of success he now has if he had spent his career under the tutelage of the likes of Herm Edwards or any other coach not named Belichick. The Pats may have lost a book, but the library is still intact.

Rob0729

The writer never said the Pats were screwed without McDaniels. Neither did I. In fact the writer, gave no opinions either way about the Pats without McDaniels. I said that the Pats offense would be fine, but might not be special if the information this guy has is true and not total BS. Considering it if from the Bleacher Report, it could very well be BS.

As for situational football, I don't think the writer said that McDaniels made up the concept. Granted neither did Weis. Or Belichick for that matter. Situational football has been practiced in one form or another for decades. Just because the writer is not aware of the concept, doesn't mean that McDaniels isn't a master in the art of the strategy.

Again, I said that the loss of McDaniels could hurt, but I don't think it is a long term problem. Belichick is still here and either O'Brien will turn into a very good OC or someone else will. We survived the loss Weis. We will survive the loss of McDaniels. There will be growing pains though. Hopefully they will be minimal. I know there are people on this board equate the growing pains loss of McDaniels as the best thing that ever happened to the Patriots.

RayClay

Plus "game planning" and "situational football" are by definition two completely different things.

Game planning could be coming up with a unique game plan for each opponent.

Being prepared for a given situation that could occur in any game. is "sf"

Being prepared for many situations doesn't even make sense. Of course you try to be prepared for any possible situation, but there isn't a name for that.

__________________

RayClay

It's just not a good article, similar to the recent Seymour article. (edit: It's from the same unnamed source. I'm assuming it's some kid in his bedroom calling himself NFL sports channel)

I didn't need to go beyond your quote to find stuff that doesn't sound like it was written by someone who knew what he was talking about.

I have no opinion about McDaniels and hope he does well as long as it doesn't negatively affect us.

*also, the way to test the credibility is to read the article. This one flunks the credibility test early-doesn't mean the conclusions are false, clocks right twice a day, remember*

__________________

Rob0729

Well, you can say that about anyone in the NFL including Belichick though. Would Belichick been the same coach if he didn't learn under Parcells, Ray Perkins, and Ted Marchabroda. Considering he runs a defense that he learned from Perkins and then from Parcells, I would say no although he might have been as successful running a different system. Most coaches' successes and failures are at leastin part of the the head coaches they learn under. Why else do you see the best head coaches have the most assistants get head coaching jobs. That is why we talk about Bill Walsh's, Bill Parcell's, Jimmy Johnson's, and Bill Belichick's coaching trees. When have we ever talked about Herm Edwards' coaching tree?